The first cause argument

[lukethethird]

Thats beyond the scope of this thread Luke. ITs explained in the OP.

Then why assume that there was a first cause if you don't know what it was? Causality applies in the known world but what evidence do we have to assume the universe in general?

 

[danieldemol]

the universe was caused.

So you keep asserting without evidence.

Forgive me for playing the mind reader, but I suspect that your mind is experiencing that things are commonly caused and then making the leap to think that because things are commonly X everything must be X (in this case X can be substituted with "caused", but I think you can see how fallacious it is in general terms).

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

So you keep asserting without evidence.

What is your epistemology for evidence?

The OP was a philosophical argument. If you have a proper philosophical argument please present it.

 

[firedragon]

Then why assume that there was a first cause if you don't know what it was?

Read the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Read your brain?

Who are you? What are you responding to mate?

When someone makes speculations about the other person and his thoughts it is him pretending to "read the others brain". Maybe he thinks he is God. Divine.

 

[firedragon]

I have studied and found the answers to these questions don't go the direction you need for your argument.



I've no doubt it fails in many other ways, but it certainly fails in these ways as well.

You have not given any argument yet. All you have done so far are strawmannirg, ignoring the OP. And it seems like you forget the OP and keep asking the same question again and again.

 

[danieldemol]

What is your epistemology for evidence?

I dont have a formal epistemology for evidence.

The OP was a philosophical argument.

Correction, it is an unsound philosophical argument.

If you have a proper philosophical argument please present it.

My philosophical argument would be that things commonly being X does not prove everything is X.

Do you agree? If not why?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

My philosophical argument would be that things commonly being X does not prove everything is X.

Thats not the argument. So this is a strawman. If you read the OP, you would understand.

 

[firedragon]

Correction, it is an unsound philosophical argument.

Are you arguing that an "unsound argument" is by default "not a philosophical argument"?

Please try to address the argument of the OP. Please do not try to get into an ad hominem or a strawman or a red herring.

Thanks in advance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you arguing that an "unsound argument" is by default "not a philosophical argument"?

Please try to address the argument of the OP. Please do not try to get into an ad hominem or a strawman or a red herring.

Thanks in advance.

One problem that jumps out at me with your first premise:

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.

Why a cause? Why just one? Why not at least one?

 

[danieldemol]

Thats not the argument. So this is a strawman. If you read the OP, you would understand.

It is not the *stated* argument, but could you confirm that is not your unstated thoughts on the matter?

Because I'm assuming you have some thought process behind your assertion that everything which begins has a cause, so what is your thought process?

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Are you arguing that an "unsound argument" is by default "not a philosophical argument"?

No

 

[Polymath257]

You have not given any argument yet. All you have done so far are strawmannirg, ignoring the OP. And it seems like you forget the OP and keep asking the same question again and again.

OK, here is the OP with my comments:

I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

That was a short intro to the history. Nice.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

This is a nice summary of the argument. Nice.

The first cause argument is simply a logical premise by premise argument.

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

If the premises are both true, the conclusion is true. So the question is now whether the premises are true.

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

Do you see the jump in logic here? You went from 'This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression' to ' Thus the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning'.

The problem is that the conclusion 'The universe had a beginning' doesn't follow from the infinite regression in the previous sentence.

his is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Understood. It is an argument for there being a first cause. And to get that the universe had a beginning, you resorted to saying it followed from a conclusion that there is an infinite regression.

What you failed to do is say *how* it follows. You supplied no reason to link the two sentences. The result is that your second premise remains unproven.

Also, your first premise has no support at all. It is a bald claim. Can you justify that premise?

 

[osgart]

Only if you are thinking in a limited linear fashion and ignoring that cyclical reactions can be a thing.

So the universe is moving in eternal perpetual cycles?

Like a big bounce, or a return to low entropy?

 

[firedragon]

I dont have a formal epistemology for evidence.

It does not necessitate formality. If you are asking for any evidence, you should be in a position to accept any evidence. But obviously no one will. When you ask for evidence, you should have your epistemology and then the question would be the contradiction.

 

[firedragon]

It is not the *stated* argument, but could you confirm that is not your unstated thoughts on the matter?

Because I'm assuming you have some thought process behind your assertion that everything which begins has a cause, so what is your thought process?

In my opinion.

Read the OP.

 

[Polymath257]

Read the OP.

You didn't address that question in your OP.

You (ok, Ghazali) *claimed* that everything that begins has a cause. That was, specifically, P1 in the argument given. But at no point in the OP was that premise justified.

 

[firedragon]

Understood. It is an argument for their being a first cause. And to get that the universe had a beginning, you resorted to saying it followed from a conclusion that there is an infinite regression.

You have completely misunderstood it.

I appreciate your response to the OP though. Thats a first really. So unlike others who keep asking for God as if they are in love with God, or what was the cause, or some ad hominem, you actually responded to the OP.

I never said there indeed is an infinite regression. In philosophy, infinite regression is a "no no". There are lots of arguments for it. If you wish, that can be discussed.

 

[firedragon]

You didn't address that question in your OP.

I know you have this "we" gang mentality Poly. But respond to your own posts and their responses. Others may have different approaches and trains of thought.

 

[firedragon]

No

Then, dont make arguments of things you are not arguing. That is just a red herring.